Paul B. Ferrara, III, of the Ferrara Law Firm, PLLC, of N. Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner has filed a petition asking
this Court to review the
Court of Appeals’ opinion in Widdicombe v. Tucker-Cales, 366 S.C. 75,
620 S.E.2d 333 (Ct. App. 2005). We grant the petition, dispense with further
briefing, and vacate the portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion supporting
the family court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case pursuant to the doctrine
of unclean hands, but affirm the opinion on all other grounds.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The
family court issued an emergency exparte order granting
respondent (Father) custody of the parties’ minor child. Subsequently,
petitioner (Mother) and Father entered into a temporary consent order granting
Father sole care, custody, and control of the child.

Mother
then moved for relief from the prior custody orders, alleging the family court
was without jurisdiction to modify the original custody order. The family
court denied Mother’s motion to dismiss, finding the family court had
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals err in further justifying the family
court’s continued exercise of jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute pursuant
to the doctrine of unclean hands?

DISCUSSION

Mother
contends the Court of Appeals erred in justifying the family court’s continued
exercise of jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute pursuant to the doctrine of
unclean hands based on her failure to give Father 60 days’ notice before moving
out of state. Mother argues this finding is not supported by the record. We
agree.

The
Court of Appeals held Mother was a resident of South Carolina pursuant to the Parental
Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738(A) (1988) and the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20-7-782, etseq.
(1985), and, therefore, the family court had subject matter jurisdiction over
the case.

As additional support for the family
court’s exercise of jurisdiction in
this case, the Court of Appeals noted other states have applied the doctrine of
unclean hands to jurisdictional issues raised pursuant to the PKPA and UCCJA.
Noting the original custody order in this case required Mother to provide 60
days’ notice before taking the child out of the jurisdiction, and finding the
record indicated no such notice was provided, the Court of Appeals held they
would not consider Mother’s sudden move to North Carolina on the eve of
Father’s filing of his complaint for custody, without notice to Father, as a
change of residence under the PKPA.

We hold the record does not support the
Court of Appeals’ finding that
Mother failed to give proper notice to Father of her move to North Carolina.
Rather, Father’s affidavit, submitted in support of an emergency change of
custody, stated Mother provided notice to him in August 1998 of her plan to
move to North Carolina. Sometime between September and October 1998, Mother
moved to North Carolina. However, the exparte order was not
entered until August 2000. SeeWooten v. Wooten, 364 S.C. 532,
615 S.E.2d 98 (2005) (in appeals from family court, an appellate court has the
authority to find the facts in accordance with its own view of the
preponderance of the evidence). Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the
Court of Appeals’ opinion further supporting the exercise of jurisdiction in
this case pursuant to the doctrine of unclean hands. However, we affirm the
remainder of the opinion holding the family court properly found it had subject
matter jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.